If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I completely disagree, having to use hibernation and reboots are the "nasty workaround" for a poorly implemented sleep. A PC should with reguards to power operate like a cell phone with reboots only being needed in the most dire of circumstances.

I completely disagree, having to use hibernation and reboots are the "nasty workaround" for a poorly implemented sleep. A PC should with reguards to power operate like a cell phone with reboots only being needed in the most dire of circumstances.

I agree with you for once. Suspend to RAM is my favorite way of saving energy when my computer isn't needed, without an expensive reboot.

I can think of only a few situations where a Suspend to RAM is unwise:

(1) You're in a thunderstorm, and you don't have a UPS on your desktop. You could lose power with the RAM warm, and that isn't too friendly to program state (everything you startup will be in some sort of recovery mode - your browser, LibreOffice, etc.)

(2) You want to suspend a laptop, but you won't be able to plug it in for many hours (12+). The battery will drain completely or mostly in that time from keeping the RAM warm. Better to save battery life and shut it down completely, so you can turn it back on and have a near-full battery on the other side.

If you get caught in situations like these frequently, you find yourself wishing you had a faster boot time. I'll admit that it isn't that important to me, because I don't hit either of these situations more than once a week or so, but shit happens and a fast boot would be nice in those times where you have to do it.

For me, as long as the boot time is significantly faster than what you get on a loaded-down Windows machine (about 3 to 5 minutes of waiting for all the updaters and preloaders to grind through), I'm satisfied. So yeah, it's pretty much a pissing contest if Linux distros are fighting for boot time in the range of less than 1 minute. I use Suspend to RAM often enough that I don't care about boot time differences of less than a minute.

If you reboot your laptop/desktop every day, even if hibernate/suspend are working, you're doin it wrong.

Ha, I'll bite. If I use my desktop 8 hours a day, why the heck would I want it consuming power for the other 16 hours (sleep)?
Or hibernate, sure it would use no power, but it's just as fast as a boot for me. Why bother, when then there's state that can be corrupted?

No, I couldn't care less about keeping an app open. If I have work in progress, I know how to save it and close the app.

Ha, I'll bite. If I use my desktop 8 hours a day, why the heck would I want it consuming power for the other 16 hours (sleep)?

Exactly! Sleep wastes power unnecessarily.

Or hibernate, sure it would use no power, but it's just as fast as a boot for me. Why bother, when then there's state that can be corrupted?

And that's the real issue. If hibernation was as fast as sleep, noone would be using sleep anymore. And with SSDs this is within the realm of possibility.

Originally Posted by deanljo

I completely disagree, having to use hibernation and reboots are the "nasty workaround" for a poorly implemented sleep. A PC should with reguards to power operate like a cell phone with reboots only being needed in the most dire of circumstances.

A computer sleeping consumes as much energy as a cellphone running, ergo sleep is wasteful.

If a computer booted and/or hibernated in <3'', I assure you you wouldn't need sleep at all. Do you disagree?

Yes I do. It is unnecessary to power down and power up a system every time. Even the fastest SSD's out there are extremely slow compared to a sleep/wake and that is very unlikely that it will ever be remotely close to a sleep/wake in speed. Most posts and device detection alone take many times longer then a sleep/wake cycle. The amount of power consumed in a sleep status is extremely minimal (chances are your alarm clock uses as much if not more power). You should only have to run a post scenario once a day at most. There aren't many products out there that still do a full power cycle when it is "shut off" most modern appliances actually go into a sleep mode (blueray players, cable boxes, phones, etc) and don't do a full boot every time you go to use it.

I like to completely power down my pc, it wastes 2,4W on standby and 4 W on suspend to ram. Some days I don't use my computer so , why I have to waste 4 W / Hour during 48 hours??

Short boot times is a really nice feature!!. On my hardware windows is booting on 45 sec and arch linux on 20 sec. Wait 45 sec is really disturbing when you get used to 20 sec boot times (I am using e4rat to futher improve boot speed on arch linux, It's a nice application if u are using ext4 filesystem).

This wikipedia article explain the actual problem with stand-by power consumption:

"Standby power, also called vampire power, or phantom power, refers to the electricity consumed by many appliances when they are switched off or in standby mode. The typical power loss per appliance is low (from 1 to 25 W) but when multiplied by the billions of appliances in houses and in commercial buildings, standby losses represent a significant fraction of total world electricity use.[1] According to Dr Alan Meier, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, standby power accounts for as much as 10% of household power-consumption. A study in France found that standby power accounted for 7% of total residential consumption; while further studies have put the proportion of consumption due to standby power as high as 13%.[2]
The IEA estimates that standby produces 1% of the world's CO2 emissions.[3] To put the figure into context, total air travel contributes less than 3% to global CO2 emissions.[4]"

This wikipedia article explain the actual problem with stand-by power consumption:

"Standby power, also called vampire power, or phantom power, refers to the electricity consumed by many appliances when they are switched off or in standby mode. The typical power loss per appliance is low (from 1 to 25 W) but when multiplied by the billions of appliances in houses and in commercial buildings, standby losses represent a significant fraction of total world electricity use.[1] According to Dr Alan Meier, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, standby power accounts for as much as 10% of household power-consumption. A study in France found that standby power accounted for 7% of total residential consumption; while further studies have put the proportion of consumption due to standby power as high as 13%.[2]
The IEA estimates that standby produces 1% of the world's CO2 emissions.[3] To put the figure into context, total air travel contributes less than 3% to global CO2 emissions.[4]"